Pflugerville uses Flock Safety license plate readers. The question isn't whether the system exists. It's what rules govern it. Retention, interagency access, and Council oversight should be defined publicly, not buried in a vendor contract.
Pflugerville uses Flock Safety license plate readers at locations around the city. If you've driven through certain intersections, your plate has likely been scanned and logged.
Each scan can include the plate number, timestamp, location, and an image of the vehicle. The vendor stores that data for a set retention period. Law enforcement can search the system, and sharing settings determine what outside agencies can query local data.
The real questions are the retention period, which outside agencies can query our data, and whether Council affirmatively approved those sharing arrangements or they've been carried administratively under the contract.
I've raised those questions with staff and the City Attorney directly. Public safety tools should be subject to public rules. If a city system collects location-linked data on residents and visitors, the public should know how long it's kept, who can access it, and what oversight exists.
I've also pushed for a formal Council-level approval process for surveillance technology contracts and material changes to data sharing.
Related: see the priorities on public safety and transparent government, or ask a question about city technology.
I raised direct questions with staff and the City Attorney about the retention period, interagency access, and the actual governance structure behind the current Flock setup. I'm treating this as a broader oversight issue, not a one-off vendor controversy. If a system is collecting location-linked data, the public deserves to know what's being kept, who can search it, and how those rules were approved.
Reach out directly or keep reading the council updates for the bigger picture.